1. On June 24, 201, the part of the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the refund of development charges against the Plaintiff is 46,323,000 won.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 18, 2006, the Plaintiff obtained approval from the Defendant on December 18, 2006 for the construction of an apartment on the ground of 53,05.9 square meters in total from the Defendant with respect to the construction of an apartment on the ground of 107,05.9 square meters in Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, and obtained authorization for the completion from the Defendant on May 29, 2009.

B. On September 23, 2009, the Defendant imposed development charges of KRW 598,835,300 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant development charges”), but the Plaintiff appealed to the imposition of the development charges and filed an administrative appeal and administrative litigation. On November 19, 2010, the Defendant accepted the court’s recommendation for mediation and refunded KRW 29,753,630.

C. On June 16, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) filed an application for the refund of development costs incurred in relation to the portion of the development charges (=395,712,400 x 25%) with the purport that the development costs incurred in addition after the completion of the imposition of the instant development charges are not subject to refund, on June 24, 2011, since the Plaintiff paid KRW 395,712,40 to the Defendant for the amount of KRW 395,712,40 as a result of the sale of an apartment after the imposition of the instant development charges; and (b) filed an application for refund with the purport that the development costs incurred in addition after the completion

(hereinafter "the rejection disposition of this case") / [the grounds for recognition] / The non-contentious facts, Gap's 1 through 6 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The defendant's judgment on the main defense of this case does not have the right to file a claim for the refund of the development charges of this case with the plaintiff, and thus, the disposition of refusal of this case is not a disposition, and thus the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and thus, the defense

If an administrative agency’s refusal to take action following a citizen’s affirmative filing of an application constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation, the agency’s filing of the application shall exercise public power.